NeuroLogica Blog

Steven Novella did one[0] - "Well, there are about 2 million researchers in the US. There are about 25 deaths per million people per day in the US, that’s 50 scientists dying each day, or 73,000 scientists over a four year period. Finding 11 that have some vague connection does not seem unusual to me." He goes into greater detail further down to assuage the "BUT BUT that's genpop not JPL!" whatabouters and does some "how TF are these people connected?" musing. [0] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/whats-with-the-dead-or-missing-sci…

This talk is... not great. Being a controversial contrarian isn't too helpful when you're mostly just wrong and misinformed. I commend him for at least linking to the responses of his critics, though I'm not sure he's ever addressed them. I'd suggest reading Steven Novella's response at least: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-horgan-is-skeptical…

The skeptical movement subscribes to critical thinking, empiricism, and applying the scientific model to find answers. To say that skeptics don't believe in climate change is very untrue. This is contrasted to denialism which denies claims out of hand. This is not based on scientific data, but gut feeling or motivated reasoning. Dr. Ichikawa is thus describing denialism in his tweets. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism edit: Here is an article on the distinction from one of the strongest figures in the skeptical movement, Steven Novella. It even focuses on the topic of climate change. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/skeptic-vs-denier/

I’ve been following these studies for awhile. The biggest red flag for me is that the effect is constrained to male rates. This is exactly the sort of result you expect to see when not sufficiently controlling for multiple statistical analyses (i.e., unintentional p-hacking). I suspect a Bayesian approach with an appropriate prior on sex-sensitive biological cancer effects would not yield statistically significant results. Some other broad concerns are outlined here: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/that-rat-cellphone-study…

I think you're thinking this is more likely to be an honest attempt at a medical treatment, with the goal of furthering scientific and medical knowledge. I think that is extraordinarily unlikely. I think it is more likely that this is a scam. My reasons are that (as others have pointed out), one does not start medical trials on humans; I am unaware of any plausible reason for why this would help in the first place (stem cells are not magic); they apparently did not follow proper protocols for eye treatments (start with one eye instead of both); the women were clearly not informed of the risks; and finally, this was a paid treatment. For more, see these two blog posts I pointed out in another comment: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alzheimers-and-stem-cells… and http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-stem-cell-quackery/

A great example of moving the goal post. Go down the list, as each on is stricken off the supporters will say "it was never about X, it was always about Y". I'm constantly hearing about how organic food is: Healthier, tastier, or better for the environment. The scientific literature just doesn't hold up with any of those claims. [1] On top of that, if there was some aspect of organic food that actually did make it better for the environment, then let's just use that with normal farming. Why create an arbitrary new category of food based on a fallacy? [2] [1] http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-food-pesticides-a… [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

>The barrier of entry to biology is artificially high due to all sorts of reasons, mostly regulatory. Considering the nature of the placebo affect and the difference between feeling better and being better, I am skeptical of pulling down many of the barriers to DIY biology. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding and making a straw-man here, but we already have therapies that do not work, such as acupuncture or a wide range of So Called Alternative Medicines. "Stem cell" treatments that are outright fraud already exist [0,1]. My fear is that this will be replicated with CRISPR technology. Personally, I would like treatments that work and am skeptical that the market could decide what's best (I don't think this is the argument that you are making, but I want to address it nonetheless). The CRISPR babies that I believe you were referring to are an example of needing regulations. One rogue doctor made changes to their genome that are not preventative. This was incredibly shoddy work that should not be applauded [6]. I would also argue that the barrier is not artificially high. Doing biological research is incredibly difficult. Unlike with your analogy to Tesla, people can die from treatments [2]. Additionally,with CRISPR there are off target affects that need to be understood before wide scale use [3]. There is great promise in biotech [4,5]. However, the consequence are not just billion dollar explosions, but lives. I may be over dramatizing, but I think a careful approach is…

Dr. Steven Novella on brainwave entrainment, from 2008: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/brainwave-entrainment-and… "That is generally where the science ends and the pseudoscience begins. A number of companies and individuals have then extrapolated from the phenomenon of entrainment to claim that altering the brain waves changes the actual functioning of the brain. There is no theoretical or empirical basis for this, however. Entrainment is a temporary effect on the synchronization of neuronal firing – it does not improve or increase brain functioning, it does not change the hardwiring, nor does it cure any neurological disorder. There is no compelling evidence for any effect beyond the period of entrainment itself." I do like the "Cyberpunk" atmosphere of some of the music. But their other claims require some extraordinary evidence. For example, does this impart any more benefit than me listening to my favorite working music whilst working? It doesn't seem to. But I haven't had a chance to sift through their supposed "180 studies"

From the article: "Kaptchuk . . . doesn’t argue that you can simply 'think yourself better.' 'Sham treatment won’t shrink tumors or cure viruses,' he says." That's an honest statement and an important point, because many publications with Kaptchuk's name on them are overinterpreted to reach the conclusion that there is a "real" placebo effect that can actually cure disease. In fact, there is no strong evidence of that at all. This issue has come up often enough on Hacker News that I have gathered some links that are helpful for understanding what placebo effects are all about. Some of these online links cite quite a few useful scholarly publications. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/michael-specter-on-the-p… "In other words, the best research we have strongly suggests that placebo effects are illusions, not real physiological effects. The possible exception to this are the subjective symptoms of pain and nausea, where the placebo effects are highly variable and may be due to subjective reporting." Numerous press releases on the Web point to publications co-authored by Ted Kaptchuk, the main person profiled in the article kindly submitted here. Although Kaptchuk has the academic title of an associate professor of medicine, he has no medical training or credentials or clinical experience in independently verified patient…

Amen Clinics have been covered on sciencebasedmedicine.org a few times (2008 and 2013) from the look of it. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/spect-scans-at-the-amen-clinic-a-new-… https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-amens-love-affair-with-spect-scans… Both https://sciencebasedmedicine.org and https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ are good resources for detailed research into science and medicine. With Neurologica having some good deep dives into Neuroscience topics https://theness.com/neurologicablog/category/neuroscience/ as the author is a recently retired academic clinical neurologist

Unsinkable rubber duck. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/underwhelming-cell-phone-rat-study… No amount of evidence is going to stop people from claiming danger of cell phone radiation.

The idea that there is no fundamental law of physics that should prevent us ... Maybe ... someday. But right now, we don't even fully understand the physics that makes a human brain work. Every time someone starts investigating, they uncover surprising new complexity. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/is-the-brain-analog-or-digital/

Thanks for your reply. There's a good response to that plan here[1], the main takeaways being low round-trip efficiency (lose 50-80% of the energy spent in the process of storing & releasing) and the lack of proven renewable hydrogen generation tech. We should absolutely keep developing this idea and use it in places where it's a good fit. But I'm not willing to bet our future on unproven tech when we have a perfectly good solution right in front of us already working today. [1] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/hydrogen-takes-another-hit/

Meh. After reading both the linked page and this link[1] that someone else posted in this thread, I definitely agree with this take from the latter: > After reading his article, it is safe to say that Horgan does not have the first clue about scientific skepticism. The result was a parade of straw men supported by cherry picked and often misinterpreted examples. I don't see obnoxious counter-attacks, I see people correctly pointing out that he's wrong. [1]: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-horgan-is-skeptical…

It’s not credible at all: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/no-atlantis-has-not-been…

> There's evidence (citation needed) that drinking fluoridated water impacts neurological development, mood, behaviour, etc. Citation definitely needed. General Ripper notwithstanding, the science doesn't seem to support the conclusion that the amount of fluoride that is intentionally added to drinking water is detrimental to health. (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-study-shows-fluoride…

Studies are coming in daily showing no benefit from HCQ. As this article [1] points out, any other drug would not be looked at further given the current set of information. But, since HCQ has been seen as a cure, a lot more time and money will be spent showing the same results - no effect. [1] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/no-benefit-from-hydroxyc…

research does not indicate that [0]. mindfulness meditation isn't real, people only believe it because it comes from the Mysterious East and it's Ancient. [0] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mindfulness-no-better-th…

This is one source corroborating your claim: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/nutrient-density-of-crop… But it's good to read that whole article, because in general the availability of fruits have gone up as well.

> creationist and climate change denialist Unfortunately, it's not exactly an uncommon problem. https://theness.com/index.php/creationists-mechanical-engineers-and-th… https://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/11/11/the-salem-hypothesis-explained http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/thermo_patterson.html

Nope. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/problems-with-that-organ…

Conspiracy Thinking and Pattern Recognition https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-and-… “We conclude that illusory pattern perception is a central cognitive mechanism accounting for conspiracy theories and supernatural beliefs.”

I think Steven Novella (of Science Based Medicine, fame) summed it up pretty well: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-oliver-and-the-nucle… TL;DR: He did the anti bits quite well, but didn't explicitly state the pros explictitly. Which might me understandable, given the format, but he usually does state at least a few "however"'s or "but"'s, etc. I don't think that instantly makes him a shill, FWIW.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/do-cold-drinks-alter-dige… I don't think cold water is actually bad for digestion.

"known" dangers is debatable, that's what the issue is. As posted elsewhere in these comments: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-cause-can…

Environmental puritan wackos hate genetic engineering. Fight for science. Fight for food security. Fight against this rising tide of ignorance and scare tactics posing as science. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/

This would be (barring outright fraud) nearly harmless if we had preregistration as a prerequisite for studies 'counting' (in meta-analyses, in discussions here, in academic rankings, etc) http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/registering-studies-reduc… I suppose they could still add ridiculous interpretations (as is often the case when people's livelihood depends on their work being seen to promote a given side), but at least you could trust the data.